Firstly, thank you for applying to the Foundation Programme. (did we have any other option?) I am very aware that things have not run smoothly in this transition year and am sorry if you have found the application process difficult or stressful. (the lame appology)
We are doing everything we can (i.e not replying to individual applicant emails) to ensure that the next stages of the process will be as trouble free as possible. As you know, this year a national system of open competition (lottery?!) was introduced for medical school graduates applying to the Foundation Programmes beginning in August 2006.
As in all previous years, this is intrinsically a competitive process, and inevitably not everyone is able to have the post of their choice. It is also a serious job application process designed to safeguard the safety of patients (and applications written by others and not verified make this far safer!?) as well as to place young doctors in posts that enable them to complete their basic medical training.
The application form you submitted made clear that hospitals which offer employment to foundation doctors may wish to review applicants before employment is offered. This will be a routine part of the process for applicants who score less than 20. You now need to enter the second phase of the process because you were not matched in the first phase. Group 1 UoA applicants: (welcome to the lottery!) you will receive a PIN number from your deanery which will enable you access to the Multi-Deanery Foundation Programme Online Appointment Process website at www.newdoctor.org (which will ultimately crash and not work!)
Group 2 UoA applicants: you can use your current PIN number to access the Multi-Deanery Foundation Programme Online Appointment Process website at www.newdoctor.org.We are aware of the problems posed by electives (no consideration taken in first phase) and finals and are working to get the website open for viewing this week, and open for applications as soon as possible after that, if possible before the end of February.
The details of the closing date and the timing of the match will be announced when the website opens, but the intention is to allow several weeks for applications to be made, to cater for the different patterns of electives and examinations. Applicants will be able to log on to view the programmes that are remaining and make their selections (there are nearly 500 programmes still available). You will be competing for the posts with applicants from both Group 1 and Group 2.The application forms of everyone scoring less than 20 will be reviewed to check for transcription and other errors. (and if you got 21 - i guess this won't be checked - sorry ehh?!)
These applicants will be part of the phase two match but before a firm offer of employment is made they will be invited to a pre-employment assessment organised jointly by employers and Foundation Schools. If you are at all worried or uncertain about this please seek advice from your Medical or Foundation School prior to entering the next phase. (We don't know - don't email us - we won't reply)
If you are not successful in this final round, you will be advised to seek advice from your own Medical School. Please remember that because every year some students do not pass their final examinations, this always creates a number of vacancies which will be available to those people who did not get matched in this appointment process. I anticipate therefore that following the results of finals, there will be enough places to accommodate all suitable applicants. We are seeking legal advice on a couple of issues, (as you start to realise the discontent among the shafted doctors of tomorrow) but I thought it better to set out what we anticipate the further process will be, subject to that advice, rather than to wait longer. Again I am very sorry that things have not run as we had hoped this year. (poor planning gives poor results - plain and simple really?!)
Professor Graham Winyard
Chair COPMeD
graham.winyard@wessexdeanery.nhs.uk
EMAIL PROF GRAHAM WINYARD
- Add the Prof to your emails. MDAP don't respond - maybe he will?
- Ask him directly why his deanery (Wessex) is not in MDAP - the doctor lottery experiment?
posted by Medic at 4:57 PM
5 Comments:
Dear Professor Winyard,
Thank you very much for your e-mail today regarding my failure to secure an F1 position following the first round of the MDAP process. As you may be aware 39 students from my medical school have been unplaced and across London there are 250 of us. This would mean that placing all of the London students will require over half of the remaining programmes. I was disappointed to see that you failed to stress in your letter that we are in fact guaranteed a position having successfully passed our final examinations. Your letter seemed to imply that there might not actually be enough programmes left to fulfil this promise. Has there been any decision taken as to what will happen if this is indeed the case?
I fully agree with you that applying for PRHO jobs has always been a competitive process and that invariably some people will be left disappointed with the results of allocations. I found it very interesting however that you identify ensuring patient safety as a goal of the MDAP process. I find it hard to correlate the application form with the clinical skill of the applicant. Indeed having raised this issue with Dr Fiona Moss of the London Deanery, I was told "The fact that you were not allocated a post in the first round does not reflect on how good you are as a student or that you are not a good candidate". Surely there was nothing on the form that directly tested our clinical skill and therefore it is improper to ask those who scored less than 20 to sit an assessment of their clinical skills prior to starting their job. This idea suggests that the final examinations we sit prior to graduation are not sufficient in determining candidates' abilities.
Marking of the application forms must have been very hard given the subjective nature of the form. Given that there was little training given to the scorers prior to marking and the vague guidance they were given, I find it hard to believe that marking standards could be consistent across the country. There is then the matter of verifying applications for the truthfulness of their content which was not performed prior to the match. There does not even seem to be an obligation on foundation schools to verify applications.
As of yet I have been unable to ascertain how my application scored. This is of great interest to me and is my right to see under the Data Protection Act of 1998. When I approached the MDAP Co-ordinator regarding this they suggested that I should be able to get this information from my Foundation School. Unfortunately my Foundation School were directed this morning by the London Deanery not to release this information. I wonder why there is such great effort to keep this information from us. Providing the marking and allocation were done in a fair manner surely releasing this information cannot cause any harm. I am glad that legal advice has been sought by the MDAP team and hopefully it will clear up this issue.
There does not seem to have been any thought about an appeals process for this system. I would have thought that there was an obligation for an appeals process to exist. I would be grateful if perhaps you could explain to me the appeals process for this system because I know many of us would be keen to appeal the results of the initial allocation.
Finally may I thank you for your attention to the issues I have raised. I understand that any new system is likely to run in to difficulties during its implementation. This seems to have been particularly true of the MDAP process, which appears to have proved unpopular with consultants and students alike. I think you will agree however that the points I raise are very serious and deserve further investigation.
Yours sincerely,
You should ask Prof Winyard these direct questions:
(1) What legal or Statutory right MDAP has to ask for an assessment if you score less than 20.
I can tell you NONE.
MDAP is not a statutory authority, the govt by act of parliament has given the GMC and PMETB the authority to assess clinical competence.
Any student asked to do this is within their legal rights to refuse, they should ask to be refered to the GMC.
Armed with a good lawyer (provided with legal aid because of student debt) and your excellent CVs, references and course assessment scores-the GMC will laugh and say no thanks we dont want to get involved.
(2)Ask directly if MDAP is calling into question your clinical competence if it is asking you to undergo further asssesment (WHICH IT CANT) based on a score of less than 20 from a very subjective form marked in a very heterogenous fashion nationwide.
By marking people out with scores of less than 20 without objective data to show that this is linked with a failing student (data I am sure they dont have-in fact ask them) you can argue that they are calling into question and damaging your Good professional standing which you have developed ie libelous.
In addition it could also be argued that they are singling you out, causing you emotional distress and is a form of harrasment.
If so these are grounds to sue MDAP for damages.
(2) Ask about page 19 of the framework document which says an appeal process must exist in all foundation schools-link belw
http://www.mmc.nhs.uk/download/Operational-Framework.pdf
(3) Ask why MDAP is flouting the data protection act-in fact if they have refused report them to the ombudsman.
MDAP was responsible for administering the process therefore if you ask for you full marking sheet they MUST provide it.
Write back again-failure to comply to mutiple requests will look very bad.
If the MDAP is talking to lawyers they are worried. The whole process is so clearly full of holes.
MDAP needs to accept that there are fundamental problems and that students have been seriously disadvantage-they should reopen the whole process for this year, cross reference all data, check all references and have the forms marked in a validated way.
If they cant do this they should hand the process back to the medical schools and consultants who DO KNOW how to appoint FY1/PRHO in a timely, effective, robust and fair manner.
You guys should not only be asking for you score BUT A FULL COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET.
MDAP are in clear contravention of Data Protection Act.
The MDAP are the holders of the data therefore they are liable for not refusing to release it.
The link to the Information commissioner is below tells you how to make a data protection complaint, and you can make a claim against MDAP for compensation this is what the website says on that issue:
'As an individual you may claim compensation from the data controller for damage or damage and distress caused by any contravention by the data controller under the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. '
Web link for Information Commissers Office:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/eventual.aspx
THIS WILL MAKE YOU LAUGH AND CRY HIS IS THE DEAN OF A DEANERY THAT WAS NOT EVEN PART OF MDAP IE WESSEX.
WE SHOULD EMAIL AND ASK HIM WHY HE SOUGHT FIT TO EXCLUDE HIS MED STUDENTS FROM THE EXPERIMENT CALLED MDAP.
We should all copy Prof Winyard in on all are emails to MDAP
graham.winyard@wessexdeanery.nhs.uk
Telephone Numbers: 01962 89 3829
Wessex Deanery
Highcroft, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DH
THIS WILL MAKE YOU LAUGH AND CRY HIS IS THE DEAN OF A DEANERY THAT WAS NOT EVEN PART OF MDAP IE WESSEX.
WE SHOULD EMAIL AND ASK HIM WHY HE SOUGHT FIT TO EXCLUDE HIS MED STUDENTS FROM THE EXPERIMENT CALLED MDAP.
We should all copy Prof Winyard in on all are emails to MDAP
graham.winyard@wessexdeanery.nhs.uk
Telephone Numbers: 01962 89 3829
Wessex Deanery
Highcroft, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DH
Post a Comment
<< Home